G153 - Strict Liability

Strict Liability

If the courts decide that no mens rea is required for an offence, it is one of strict liability.

Warner V MPC - Believed drugs were perfume, guilty.

Storkwain - Supplying drugs without a prescription, guilty.

Absolute Liability / State of Affairs

The defendant does not need to have mens rea, nor does the actus reus have to be voluntary.

Larsonneur - 'Illegal alien' in the United Kingdom, guilty.

Winzar - Drunken on a public highway, guilty.

No Mens Rea

Prince - Father's possession, guilty.

Hibbert - Father's possession, not guilty.

No Fault

Callow V Tillstone - Butcher and vet, guilty.

Harrow - Lottery ticket, guilty.

No defence of mistake

Cundy V Le Cocq - Selling liquor to a drunken person, guilty.

Sherras V De Rutzen - Selling alcohol to an on-duty constable, not guilty.

Strict Liability in common law

Most offences of strict liability are found within statute law. They usually are offences that are regulatory in nature such as matters of regulating the sale of food and alcohol, the prevention of pollution and the safe use of vehicles. 

There are some common law offences such as public nuisance, criminal libel and blasphemous libel.

Gibson and Sylverie - Art exhibition outraging public decency, guilty.

Lemon and Whitehouse V GAY News - Blasphemous poem describing Jesus Christ in a homosexual manner, guilty.

Strict Liability in statute law

An Act of Parliament will usually not contain words such as negligence, intention or knowledge as these indicate the requirement of mens rea. Over 3,500 statutory offences are ones of strict liability.

Courts Interpretation.

The courts will always presume that a mens rea is required when a criminal offence is created. 

Sweet V Parsley - Students growing cannabis, landlord unaware, not guilty.

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd - Minor VS substantional deviation of building plans, guilty. 

In determining whether an offence is one of strict liability there is a presumption that mens rea is required. This presumption may be wrong where:

1. The crime is regulatory as opposed to a true crime; or
2. The crime is one of social concern; or
3. The wording of the Act indicates strict liability; or
4. The offence carries a heavy penalty and will therefore help enforce the law.

Quasi criminal offences (or regulatory offences)

• Selling food (Callow V Tillstone)
• Selling alcohol (Cundy)
• Building regulations (Gammon)

Regulations preventing pollution from being caused are also included, as in the case of Alphacell.

Alphacell - Polluted river due to faulty pipes, guilty.

'Truly criminal' offences.

If an offence carried a prison sentence, it is generally considered 'truly criminal' in the case of strict liability.

B V DPP - Inciting a child under 13, conviction quashed.

Social concern

Strict liability can be justified in cases which carry a potential danger to 'public health, safety or morals'.

Blake - DJ transmitting without a…